You do realize that we can continue defining terms for an infinite regress, right?
The question is 'for what purpose are we defining these terms?'
Things should be as precise as they should be, and no more than that.

The nitpicking isn't about defining the terms, it's about complaining about 'knowledge' being a word with multiple senses, the concept having a breadth to it, etc. Focus on getting what I mean first, then you may criticize.
Those nitpicks are irrelevant to nailing down terms.

You've articulated that as the purpose, but your nitpicking is contrary to this purpose. Either your articulated purpose isn't your true purpose, or you have a bad habit of nitpicking that you need to curtail.

There is no argument or inference, so there are no premises to agree to. There is a definition and an explanation of what the definition MEANS.
We can talk about the shared definitions we already have, though :-)

3. You've simply asked me to 'explain' several times, without taking the time to articulate your understanding of my position in your own words.
4. You've confused errors in casual speech with my actual position, sharing lack of charity

You've made several:
1. You've interspersed criticisms of my initial tweet with questions about what exactly I mean, muddying the waters and diffusing the focus of the conversation.
2. You've held me to a high standard of precision, and then complain when I hold you to the same

I've never recommended anything in this discussion. You seem to nitpicking over much and using too much precision when analyzing my language while not being anywhere near as careful with your own speech.
This nitpicking is just making me more tired of talking to you.